Blu-Ray quality disappointing

[Lumberg]

I agree with both Iceman and PeterTHX. I have a PS3 and a Toshiba HD-A2 player, so I've done some 'tests'. When I first hooked up my PS3, it was playing in 480. I manually put it in 1080i, which is what my T.V. will max out at ( 46" Sony Grand Wega LCD). The HDMI cable makes a big difference as well. I have both a Monster and another brand I got at Bestbuy (I didn't want to spend another $80 on a cable, so I got one for $40). I can see the 'noise' on the lower priced cable and it makes the movie not look 'as' good. It still looks good, but I can see the difference. Also, the movie itself makes a difference. For blue-ray, I have Talladega Nights, Underworld 2, Stargate, and I just got The Guardian. Stargate doesn't look as good as any of the others, which I'm attributing to it being an older movie when compared to the others. The Guardian and Underworl look really good! Especially, The Guardian. I would manually do the settings and not have it auto set. I like knowing exactly what is going on.

[Heresy]

I have X3 on DVD and BD and with the Panasonic player and 65" Mits DLP there is a very noticeable difference.

Is it a huge broadcast TV to HDTV difference? No. But everything is clearly crisper and clearer in the BD version. For example, in the scene where X and Mags confront Jean in her house; just look at his hands and his suit as he sits in his wheelchair, it's not even close on which is the better picture.

[benes]

The OP sounds like all the average joes who are impressed by HD-video (like Discovery Channel) and not HD films. He says Crank is the only movie he likes. Guess what? That was shot on HD-video. It sounds like you have the wrong expectations of what a movie in HD is supposed to look like.

[Iceman_II]

Originally Posted by tulegit

by the way, kurt vidal seems to agree with me with Underworld.

Not sure who kurt vidal is, but all things considdered, I really don't care... I have a damn fine upscaling DVD running through HDMI, and the PS3 running through HDMI, and can a/b toggle them through an HDMI switch.... and I have to agree with the comments above, that if you cant tell the difference, something is definately NOT correct.... the underworld BD is jaw dropping! and that is even AFTER being down-rezed to 768... if you see no difference, all is not right in wellville

[jorg]

yes i agree if u don`t see the diffrence then you need to inspect you setup from top to botum check your tv port are u using hdmi

[yuichiror]

At first I wasn't really impressed with BD's. But the more movies I watch, BD and SD, the more I notice the difference. And yeah, the movie does make a difference. Some BD's are just better "looking" than others. Plus you gotta love the scratch resistant coating. I have four small kids, so I helps alot of one of them happens to get a hold of one.
BTW, this is my first post.

[TallCoolOne]

Originally Posted by kurt vidal

I would like to see some more input from posters regarding head to head comparisons using upscaling dvd player vs a blu-ray player.

I have a DVDO VP50 (a $3000 video processor for deinterlacing and scaling) hooked up to my standard DVD player. With this setup standard DVD's look as good as they ever will get, they look close to HD quality. I have done A/B comparisons with the PS3 BD and standard DVD's through the VP50. The BD movie is always better, hands down, even though the standard DVD's look great, the detail level is just not there...there is no comparison. The only movie that looked better through the VP50 with the old standard DVD vs the BD version was Lethal Weapon 2, but they clearly just botched that BD transfer...it looks like ass.

Underworld is very dark so it is harder to tell with that one, but even on that movie if I pause the exact same scene and compare in detail up close, the BD has way more detail...there is no question about it...and this is not a cheap upconverting DVD player I'm comparing with, it's simply as good as it gets for standard DVD's.

I can try to take pictures showing the comparisons but I'm not sure how well you'll be able to see with a digital camera shot of the TV.

tulegit, you must be doing something wrong, end of story..or Vizio really is a LOT worse than most TV's, but I really doubt that...they're not so bad from what i've seen of them. Or perhaps you simply can't tell the difference...this is not a knock on you or your eyesight at all, my brother can't see the difference between an HD TV show and the non-HD version...I have to pause and show him up close the detail differences but when it's just playing he doesn't see much diff...he's not a techy guy like me so maybe just doesn't have an eye for resolution comparisons...who knows..

[diddlyD]

i think sometimes it takes a bit to adjust to what you are actually seeing that you don't see on SD DVDs. Hair, texture in skin and clothes, small background details, etc, might not be immediately obvious to someone just seeing an HD disc for the first couple of times.

Trying to go back to SD DVD's after getting used to even low-range picture quality Blu-ray discs though is quite a let down. SD content just looks so weak in comparison.

[tulegit]

Originally Posted by benes

The OP sounds like all the average joes who are impressed by HD-video (like Discovery Channel) and not HD films. He says Crank is the only movie he likes. Guess what? That was shot on HD-video. It sounds like you have the wrong expectations of what a movie in HD is supposed to look like.

according to avsforum, they list Crank as the 2nd best movie in tier 0. So sorry, not just average joes think that all movies should be at that quality.

[tulegit]

Originally Posted by TallCoolOne

I have a DVDO VP50 (a $3000 video processor for deinterlacing and scaling) hooked up to my standard DVD player. With this setup standard DVD's look as good as they ever will get, they look close to HD quality. I have done A/B comparisons with the PS3 BD and standard DVD's through the VP50. The BD movie is always better, hands down, even though the standard DVD's look great, the detail level is just not there...there is no comparison. The only movie that looked better through the VP50 with the old standard DVD vs the BD version was Lethal Weapon 2, but they clearly just botched that BD transfer...it looks like ass.

Underworld is very dark so it is harder to tell with that one, but even on that movie if I pause the exact same scene and compare in detail up close, the BD has way more detail...there is no question about it...and this is not a cheap upconverting DVD player I'm comparing with, it's simply as good as it gets for standard DVD's.

I can try to take pictures showing the comparisons but I'm not sure how well you'll be able to see with a digital camera shot of the TV.

tulegit, you must be doing something wrong, end of story..or Vizio really is a LOT worse than most TV's, but I really doubt that...they're not so bad from what i've seen of them. Or perhaps you simply can't tell the difference...this is not a knock on you or your eyesight at all, my brother can't see the difference between an HD TV show and the non-HD version...I have to pause and show him up close the detail differences but when it's just playing he doesn't see much diff...he's not a techy guy like me so maybe just doesn't have an eye for resolution comparisons...who knows..

thanks for the comparison. I would like to point out that I CAN tell the difference. Most people can, even for non techies out there. Without, getting into the details of human anatomy, picking up visual details is a lot easier for people than things like audio.

I'll try to do some more tweaking, but i'm pretty sure i'll get the same results. I'm not saying BD quality is bad...its just not very impressive in most movies that i've seen ( which is not many).

[kurt vidal]

I was going to try "theknub's" suggestion (turn off 1080p and turn on 1080i). However, my DLP is incapable of 1080P. When I take the PS3 thru the automatic setup it detects my TV to be capable of 480P, 720P & 1080I. When I compared the underworld DVD's my TV was showing it was getting 1080I video input from the PS3. Maybe my problem is my TV has a native resolution of 1280x786???? Could that be the reason my comparison of upconverted dvd vs blu-ray is coming out similar? I have calibrated the TV.

[jorg]

if it dlp it wont matter much it matters when its lcd what the native is

[nobody]

Originally Posted by tulegit

I hate to say it, but the BD movies i have are only slightly better than their DVD counter parts.

I have X3 on both formats and did a head to head comparison and was really really disappointed. $600 for a PS3 and $30 for a BD disc and hardly a noticeable improvement.

When I put MI3 in, my wife commented that "it looks the same". You would think that a BD with 1080p would look amazing, but so far only HDTV over my antenna has been jaw dropping (football especially).

Within 2 weeks, I have a modest collection of BD movies and only one (Crank) is worth showing off. I'm a little embarrassed to show the rest off. I don't own an upscaling DVD player and was never a big fan of upscaling because the source is still 480i but now i'm thinking it would give BD a run for its money.

movies:
Crank
Mission Impossible Collectors set
X3
Talledega Nights
Hous of flying daggers (absolute crap)

btw: I love the PS3 for all the other things it can do like play Hi-Def MPEG4's and Madden 2007 but so far the BD experience has been embarrassing.

You need to get your eyes checked!!!!

[benes]

Originally Posted by tulegit

according to avsforum, they list Crank as the 2nd best movie in tier 0. So sorry, not just average joes think that all movies should be at that quality.

If you want all your movies to look like Crank then talk to the directors. Don't blame blu-ray. You are getting the movies exactly the way they should be.

[Deciazulado]

Now, now, it could be a million reasons. No need for people to get so excited if he perceives things differently. There's a color for each person. So if tulegit is being legit we should try find what's the bottom of the matter. If he weren't, would it matter?

So first things first. tulegit is watching movies at 3.65 PH (picture heights) from a 23" x 41" screen. (As reference I watch movies covering an area at least 6 to 8 times bigger). Blowing a DVD to cinema size looks kind of of out of focus, while most Blu-rays tend to hold up pretty well. At tulegit's distance something as low as 800 x 1440 pixels would look practically pixel perfect every time and something like 400 x 720 pixels would look from very good to excellent, if you had the sharpness setting optimized for each. As DVDs are basically 400 x 720, at that viewing distance you won't see much difference between a DVD and a 720p or more program. One will look almost perfect while the other will look only great.
If we eliminate tulegit's display assuming the Vizio is capable of reproducing the full 1080 x 1920 pixels at 100% contrast, and we eliminate the player/display resolution settings assuming they are correct getting the full 1080p output into it, what remains? Either the viewing distance is too far away to distinguish differences clearly; the white level/black level (contrast: affects perceived sharpness) and/or sharpness settings on the Blu-ray's input on the display are not optimized for it at your viewing distance; or most Blu-ray transfers suck or their intended aesthetics are very different from what tulegit considers an aesthetically excellent picture; or something is really wrong in the Blu-ray chain.

Since he thinks films on DVD look great, then I would be inclined to think is one of the first two, or a combination of both.

HDTV live/videotape events and DVDs can have the sharpness peaked (meaning the edge sharpness may be "enhanced" to look 100% sharp at the average household viewing distances) while maybe the Blu-ray movie's is not. But even if the BD movie's input sharpness setting were to be tweaked and optimized on the display for the 3.65 PH viewing distance the difference wouldn't be so dramatic between them and DVDs at that viewing distance as I mentioned above. At most, like the diference in image quality between seating in a back row on a theater and sitting on one of the optimal rows at the front, while watching a perfectly focused movie.

[shamus]

Originally Posted by diddlyD

i think sometimes it takes a bit to adjust to what you are actually seeing that you don't see on SD DVDs. Hair, texture in skin and clothes, small background details, etc, might not be immediately obvious to someone just seeing an HD disc for the first couple of times.

Trying to go back to SD DVD's after getting used to even low-range picture quality Blu-ray discs though is quite a let down. SD content just looks so weak in comparison.

I totally agree. When I first got into this I did comparisons with Underworld. I could tell a slight difference but was afraid the average guy wouldnt. As time went on I continued to just watch BD movies. One day I popped in a standard DVD and I couldnt believe how bad it looked....

[TauRus]

tulegit, I honestly hope you got your Vizio in Costco. If so I would strongly recommend returning it. Yes Visio has a nice appealing outer design, but their panels and especially electronics are not anywherre close to let's say Sony or Sharp LCD panels. I made a number of direct comparisons of Vizio and some other panels. The only thing I liked about Visio was a decent greyscale. Everything else was lacking. One of the major issues I found with Visio was lack of sharpness which told me the integrated video scaler/deinterlacer was subpar. Take a look at D62 Sharp panels, their electronics and LCD panels are much better.

[Dave Mack]

although his set might indeed be 1080P, does it accept 1080P native? many, many sets don't. Try using 1080i, manually entering it and see what happens.
try renting Kingdom Of heaven or Blackhawk down. If you don't see a noticeable jump in PQ from SD dvd then I would agree that something is amiss there...

[Alley]

I think alot of us are average joes. I know when I put in my first blu-ray movie I expected it too look like a HD broadcast on my TV. boy was I wrong. I'm now more educated in the a tech aspects after finding this forum. I didn't know differnet movies were different quality.

[WilliamC]

Originally Posted by tulegit

I don't think you understand. EVERYTHING looks good on my display. So we can eliminate that right now. the only thing thats not impressive is BD movies. Even DVDs look great. Crank on BD looks great. so nothing is wrong with my equipment or setup.

My point is that other movies like X3 and Underworld (as the other poster mention) are very similar in quality to DVD.

And if you do research on Vizio, it has been getting nothing but praise and rewards.

I actually thought the opposite. I did not like the PQ from Crank at all, it looked to video to me. I prefer a more film like image. I believe the comment someone else made applies to you. You are on those that prefer HD-Video over film. I am the opposite.

Personally I did not like the Vizio display. Thats not to say its crap, just saying it didn't measure of to my PQ standards. Too much noise, poor black level, probably as a result of the contrast ratio. I am curious as to which pioneer you compared the vizio too. I looked at the 1080p model, FPHD-1 or something like that. Obviously the pioneer elite blew the vizio and panny displays away.

I really don't trust magazine reviews for several reasons.
1. Most of the reviews are not biased. Advertising can buy good reviews.
2. The one who will be enjoying it is me and it should only please me, not some reviewer.
Mostly its for #1, these magazines back in the day use to publish some excellent reviews and trashed a lot of products b/c they were in fact crap. Now, if you can pay them good money, then you get a favorable review.